Mitchell v. U.S.P.-Marion, IL et al

Filing 224

ORDER denying 214 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 3/25/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
D. WALLACE MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES A. DANIELS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06-cv-624-DRH-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for recusal (Doc. 214). Petitioner requests
that the undersigned recuse himself from this case as Petitioner believes that the undersigned has
predetermined opinions about the respondent which Petitioner claims came from extra judicial
sources. Petitioner also believes that the undersigned has already formed an opinion of the case, so to
lead Petitioner to believe that the undersigned cannot fairly preside over the upcoming evidentiary
hearing.
Any judge must recuse himself, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, “in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge must also
recuse himself if he “has a personal bias or prejudice against the party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (A
judge should disqualify himself when he has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,
or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings.”). The bias
must arise for an extrajudicial source, and “must be grounded in some personal animus or malice that
the judge harbors against him, of a kind that a fair-minded person could not entirely set aside when
judging certain persons or causes.” Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 355 (7th Cir. 1996). Actual
bias or prejudice must be proved by “compelling evidence.” Id. Ordinarily remarks made during

the course of a hearing and judicial rulings are not grounds for recusal. Id. (“[J]udical rulings are
grounds for appeal, not disqualification.”). A judge must also recuse himself if a party files an
affidavit showing that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the party. 28 U.S.C. § 144.
But the party’s affidavit must have sufficient facts that are “sufficiently definite and particular to
convince a reasonable person that bias exists; simple conclusions, opinions, or rumors are
insufficient.” O’Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal
citations omitted).
Here, Petitioner has not offered compelling evidence that the undersigned is biased or
prejudiced against the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the undersigned has engaged in ex parte
communications with Respondent as Petitioner suggests, and in fact, the undersigned has not engaged
in ex parte communications. It appears from the allegations in Petitioner’s motion that he is merely
unhappy with the Court’s ruling on certain matters of discovery, particularly in ruling on the sending
and receiving of Petitioner’s mail. While Petitioner may not be happy with the Court’s order, that is
not grounds for recusal. Hook, 89 F.3d at 355. The Court also notes that Petitioner has not filed a
sufficient affidavit supporting his belief that the undersigned has a bias or prejudice against him as is
required to implicate 28 U.S.C. § 144, nor has Petitioner offered sufficient allegations that would
convince a reasonable person that bias exists. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion
for recusal (Doc. 214).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2